Oath of Office - Important? (or not)

In this interesting article published by Yahoo!news seven years ago on January 20, 2013, the reporter highlights the importance on the oath of office being administered correctly.

It's important. At least, when the Supreme Court Chief Justice is involved.

Not so important way down the line at Richland 2 School District. But shouldn't it be?

In March 2019, when it was pointed out to the School Board that Amelia McKie and Teresa Holmes were ineligible to take the oath of office on November 13, 2018, the Board should have quickly scheduled a legal administration of the oath.

But, to this day, Inauguration Day 2021, Richland 2 has not done so. Why not?

First, the Board and the District are unwilling to admit that South Carolina Code of Laws 8-13-1110(A) was, in fact, violated on November 13, 2018.

What's that old saying? "Pride goeth before a fall."

The law is clear, simple and short. First you file the Statement of Economic Interests Report and then you take the oath of office. After you take the oath of office, you enter upon official responsibilities.

McKie and Holmes have been usurping public office since November 13, 2018.

Secondly, the School District has been disbursing public monies improperly and illegally to and for them since November 13, 2018. A school board trustee gets paid $800/month plus expenses.

To become legitimate Trustees, all McKie and Holmes need to do is take the oath of office now. They filed the SEIs on December 4, 2018 and, on that date, first became eligible to take the oath of office and begin serving.

The District should recover the monies paid out to and for McKie and Holmes, probably somewhere between $20,000 and $30,000 now. Each.

Thirdly, the School Board must realize that it is going to have to review all the board decisions (votes) since November 13, 2018 and correctly state the decisions, if the result is different after the votes of McKie and Holmes are removed. Some students will not have been expelled or suspended. Other votes will change when 4-3 decisions become 2-3 (failing) decisions.

It's only a matter of time until the Board realizes and admits that, instead of operating with seven trustees, it has actually been operating with five trustees. And, when one of those five wasn't present, then the Board could not even meet, because no quorum (five) was present!

Where has legal counsel for the school district been all this time???